Recall that Nicola Sturgeon succeeded Alex Salmond as First Minister of Scotland following his resignation in the wake of the defeat of the “Yes Scotland campaign” in the Scottish independence referendum, in November 2014.

The referendum was supposed to have killed the Scottish independence movement. It didn’t. From the first link:

The Scottish National party will launch the process for holding a second referendum on Scottish independence next week, Nicola Sturgeon has said.

She said autumn 2018 to spring 2019 would likely be the best time to hold the vote.

She said the Scottish National party’s mandate for a second referendum “is beyond doubt” after the result of last June’s Brexit vote, in which 62 per cent of Scottish voters backed remain.

The prime minister’s office admitted last week that they expect Ms. Sturgeon to seek a referendum next autumn, though the government would fight to delay any vote until after Britain leaves the EU.

Ms. Sturgeon said she and the SNP had worked “really hard to find agreement” with the government in Westminster, but said “the UK has not moved even an inch towards compromise”, and that the “collapse” of the Labour party has allowed the Conservative government to harden its position.

Mrs. May cannot sign off on hard exit terms without risking the loss of Scotland, three-fifths of whose electorate voted for the EU. Such terms would not just threaten material harm to a small, trading economy, they would communicate England’s hauteur to the smaller nation. But if Mrs May softens her line, she must forgo the right to make external trade deals (to stay in the customs union) or accept free movement (to stay in the single market). The first would be death to her governing vision, the second would be unsurvivable.

Alex Salmond was a sinuous operator but Ms. Sturgeon is more emollient towards the many Scots with centre-right views, more attentive to the hard questions of currency and finance that undid the nationalists last time, less conspicuously mesmerized by the sheer sport of politics. She can also raise the prospect of austere Conservative governments in London all the way to the horizon and beyond.

The self-immolation of the Labour party had not started in 2014. Her own party is many times the size it was back then and the consortium of forces assembled against it in a referendum campaign would be fractured, as Labour shrivels and Eurosceptic Tories decide they hate Brussels more than they cherish Scotland.

Against this, Mrs. May’s best hope is to make Brexit a reality and then frame any subsequent vote for independence as a bigger risk than ever. Remaining in the EU is one thing, re-entering it quite another. It is even possible to imagine a brief spell in which Scotland, having faithfully voted for both unions, belongs to neither. Project Fear then, all over again. It is a thin basis for a union but the prime minister is not spoilt for better ones.

Theresa May in a Bind?

The alleged bind is largely an illusion. May is committed to Brexit, and it is the EU, not the UK, that forced a hard Brexit.

Thus, I doubt the position of May changes much, if at all, on account of Nicola Sturgeon.

Project Fear Scottish Style Once Again?

Former UK prime minister David Cameron desperately wanted Scotland to remain part of the UK knowing the Scotts were firmly against Brexit. Theresa May does not have that need.

Politically speaking, a case can be made for the Tories that letting Scotland go would strengthen their hand for a long time to come.

I don’t propose that May would welcome Scotland leaving, rather, she does not have the same urgency as Cameron to keep Scotland a part of the UK.

Perhaps May just lets Scotland decide for itself what it wants to do rather than engage in heavy-handed fearmongering.

Finally, it’s far too early to know how a second Scottish independence vote might go. Upcoming elections in France, Germany, and Italy could easily influence how voters in Scotland feel.

So could a recession, a messy Brexit, the price of oil, or a political swing in Scotland or the UK.

Regardless, it’s nearly certain Scotland voters will get one more chance sooner than anyone expected in the wake of a 53.3% to 44.7% remain vote in 2014.

Related

About Mish

Post navigation

Disclaimer: The content on this site is provided as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. All site content, including advertisements, shall not be construed as a recommendation to buy or sell any security or financial instrument, or to participate in any particular trading or investment strategy. The ideas expressed on this site are solely the opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinions of sponsors or firms affiliated with the author(s). The author may or may not have a position in any company or advertiser referenced above. Any action that you take as a result of information, analysis, or advertisement on this site is ultimately your responsibility. Consult your investment adviser before making any investment decisions.

There are some strange types in politics up there spouting about Scots closer ties to Europe than to England and harking back to the before the Act of Union and well before 1700.

Good luck to them. I wouldn’t be surprised if there is some EU mischief making too to cloud the Brexit negotiations.

For sure, there will be a revolution if Scotland leave the Union and expect to keep the GBP and have transfer payments from England. There will be little tolerance for that south of the border. They should have their own currency, or the Euro, and join the EU as a separate entity. There will then need to be a hard border Scotland-England etc.

Eu is diddling to discourage Brexit and it would be good for Scotland to stand on its own again rather than in this sad state of welfare hammock dependency. Must be all the go getters got up and went to Canada & USA

England won’t trump up a wall at the border regardless, and if Scotland enjoys better terms with the EU than England in some areas, the Scots can benefit from being a conduit for some business.

In addition, it can be lucrative being a small, sought after, minority of native speakers of the world’s de facto Esperanto; inside a bloc with hundreds of millions of wealthy speakers of various dialects of gibberish 🙂

No new referendum until UK is out of EU. Just too twisted to play off all at the same time. Scotland wants to be in EU, then let it achieve that independently, if it wants to leave UK for that so be it, but not sneaking through on some soon to be scrapped agreement made between UK as a whole and EU.

If Scotland were an independent country, would it qualify to join the EU? It has a lot in common (economically speaking) with the eastern european countries that have been waiting for years to join.

Germany (no matter who “wins” in September) is not going to be upping their payments to Brussels, they might even make a smaller contribution even under a new Merkel coalition. France will either be a scratch (if Fillon/Macron win) or will return to the franc (if Le Pen wins) — but France can’t afford to make meaningfully higher EU contributions. Italy has a good chance of leaving the EU, but again they can’t afford to make higher contributions even if they stay.

So who is going to pay Scotland to be in the EU? Who is even able to pay to allow Scotland to be in the EU? And can Scotland really afford to cut off trade with England in the short term? (that is a rhetorical question)

With all three anchor economies in the EU in serious doubt — two of them (France and Italy) bankrupt and one (Germany) highly suspect — will the EU in its current form even be around by the time Scotland figures things out?

Who spends taxpayer money to hold a referendum to join a bankrupt club?

PS — someone might want to ask Edinborough how they plan to pay for RBS’s ongoing bailout. That cost is relatively small compared to independence, and it is doubtful Scotland could even swing RBS’s costs without London

EU would take Scotland in, but it would and should be at face value if that were the direction – I am thinking for the Scots here. The most stupid way is to vote out of UK so as not to leave EU and then be faced with a reality of resentment from the British and a membership process with EU that is from a weakened standpoint because at that point there are no other options possible. That would be utterly stupid. If Scottish nationalists want to sell leaving UK then let them campaign at face value, outline and have their route debated, not just ‘ because we want to stay in EU ‘, which is frankly the most pathetic excuse for creating a separate nation I am able to think of.

“So it [Scotland] is to some extent a similar case because it’s a new country and so I believe it’s going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, a new member state coming out of one of our countries getting the agreement of the others.”

The only difficulty was with UK still having veto, but as it wil not be “one of our countries” now, EU would take in Scotland. No doubt, only maybe with some delay.

THAT i show Scotland is going to pay for all their Social Justice goodies. And the Global Warming Cabal will dutifully issue “scientific” papers showing that oil burned for Social Justice doesnt warm the plante the way it does when oil is burned for profit.

For an independent Scotland to accede to the EU would require approval of all other member countries. Spain, long faced with it’s Catalonia region seeking to break-away, would never approve Scotland’s accession lest the Catalans get ideas.

The economic consequences of Brexit have yet to appear, but they will and it is not going to be pretty for Britain. The EU is a market of 550 million of the world’s wealthiest consumers, but still Britain cannot get anywhere near a balance of trade with them. “Global Britain” is a chimera, it failed to happen when Britain ran 2/3rds of the world and it isn’t going to happen now. As British economic prospects weaken so the vision of an independent Scotland in the EU will gather strength. The truth is that England and Scotland have, at best, an uneasy relationship: Scotland is a tribal country of Clans, narrow minded, xenophobic and with a national character reflecting their climate; dark and miserable. English tribalism died with the enclosures when millions of English broke their family links and moved to the cities.
What is really driving the Westminster/Whitehall drive (panic) for unity is that the permanent seat on the UN Security Council is held by “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”. No UK, no seat, and England’s claim to international status and relevance is gone. It is insane to believe that the seat will automatically fall to England. What will happen is that several competitors will immediately claim that they are more deserving, among them Brazil who claim the seat because South America is not represented on the SC, and India; who claim to be the world’s largest democracy, although in truth they are just the world’s largest shithole. It is that presence on the UNSC that allows Britain to “punch above its weight” in international diplomacy, and that is a hell of a lot more important to Westminster/Whitehall than fixing potholes in Scunthorpe.
Scottish independence is a certainty at some point as the British economy unravels. It is likely that England will follow Scotland and crawl back into the EU in a decade or so.

Five are considered to be “nuclear-weapon states” (NWS) under the terms of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States , the
Russian Federation (successor state to the Soviet Union ), the United Kingdom , France , and China.

…….

five permanent members: China , France , Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States ,

Nuclear weapons are nothing to do with it. The UNSC was formed in 1945 when only the US had NW, the 5 permanent members of the Council are the victor nations of WW2, some with a bit of help: Britain was dragged over the victors finish line by USA and USSR despite being ineffective military and completely knackered in every other sense. France got in because Churchill was a dedicated Francophile (and a hopeless romantic) despite the largely ignored fact that more Frenchmen fought for Hitler than for the Allies, including the “resistance”. Chang Kai Shek’s China got in because FDR was a Sinophile.

Why UK holds its seat is for the responsibility it carries, and that in today’s world is in a larger part due to nuclear armament.

“At the time the NPT was proposed, there were predictions of 25–30 nuclear weapon states within 20 years. Instead, over forty years later, five states are not parties to the NPT, and they include the only four additional states believed to possess nuclear weapons”

That is simply not a global equation that will be allowed to be toyed with.

The UK cannot even fire it’s weapons without US permission. The NPT has been effective to some degree but there are many countries that possess the technical knowledge to produce NW and in short order; South Korea, Japan, Germany, Brazil, for example. Saudi Arabia has already purchased NW from Pakistan to be delivered when needed, they already have the delivery vehicles (missiles) on site, they could be ready to fire in one month, so I believe you are blowing a lot of smoke.

@rogerbees — “England will follow Scotland and crawl back into the EU in a decade or so.”

You make the dubious assumption that the EU will still exist in a decade or so. Have you checked the EU’s finances? Or that of their three anchor governments? Do you expect Italy to bail out France, France will bail out Germany, and Germany will bail out Italy? Maybe Spain, Portugal and Greece can bail each other out?

The EU will exist 100 years from now and will be prosperous. yes, it is going through a rough patch but look at it as the Fourth Reich and the fulfillment of Charlemagne’s dream. Whether Britain is in or out is completely irrelevant.

The truth is that it is the UK that is on the brink of dissolution, not the EU. It is England that is staring at economic disaster, not the EU. Let us examine the areas in which England leads Europe: Drug and alcohol abuse, bastardy, welfare abuse, violent crime, add to that list that England has a food deficit, a fuel deficit, a technology deficit, a technical skills deficit, a work ethic deficit, and add to that, financially a trade deficit and a current account deficit and you have a realistic picture of England. It is only the issuance of massive debt that has kept England afloat for many years, eventually that policy will come home to roost. “Global Britain”, what a joke, as I said, you lot will be begging to get back into the EU in a decade or so and you will swallow the EURO.

Meanwhile Scotland to abandon it’s bid to remain in the EU [Daily Telegraph today]:
‘Nicola Sturgeon’s referendum plans were rapidly unravelling tonight as it emerged she is to abandon the SNP’s policy of rejoining the EU immediately amid record Euroscepticism in Scotland.

Just a day after the Scottish First Minister demanded a second vote on independence, senior Nationalist sources told The Daily Telegraph that Ms Sturgeon would instead try to join the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), whose members include Norway and Iceland.’
—-

And it’s the Dutch elections today, with the nationalist ‘swerve ball’ that is Geert Wilders. Then the French Presidential election on April 23 [round 1, round 2 being 2 weeks later] with their own nationalist swerve ball Marine Le Pen, leader of the NF [ie National Front]. Then elections likely in Italy this year when Renzi falls, with the nationalist ‘5* movement’ up against Renzi’s party. Oh and then there are German elections this year too and their rising nationalist ‘AfD – aka Alternative for Germany’ party. The alternative of course being leaving the EU.

You’ll have noticed a theme within the above, these parties have arisen in recent years as a result of the EU’s direction of travel. Post WW2 the citizenry were sold the EEC/EUs proposition as being a trade block, no one admitted the long-term aim was for it to morph into a political super-state led by Germany. The world has changed since the dream of the EU state was originally cooked up. And now far better informed than ever the citizenry are increasingly rejecting the EU that they see being created. The EUs plan of creating a political super-state by stealth ‘without the citizenry realising what is happening’* has failed, and only it’s lavishly remunerated, jobs for life, non tax paying leaders can see that.

* Jean Monnet, post-WW2 French politician, generally considered to be the ‘founding father’ of what is now the EU and the blue-print of how to get from the late 1940s to this point, via stealth and deception.

Fish: Sounds nice but is totally unrealistic. The English are about to put themselves back under the thumb of the non-representative Westminster pantomime, the body that, for at least 150 years, has made one dumb decision after another, that has not even been able to analyze the issues never mind come up with a successful policy.

The media/perception is that Scotland wants to be part of the EU/Euro more than they want to be part of the UK. So do the Scots want actual independence, or do they simply want to remain hooked to the biggest socialist teet they can find?

Would Scotland 1) vote to leave the UK, and then 2) opt to join EU/Euro?

Leave one dying union just to join another dying union? Something about that sounds crazy/idiotic to these american ears…

Global Britain – not my phrase, but English is the closest to a global language, the UK is actively present around the world, and is a top, if not the top, centre of communication for global affairs. That is good enough for an island and population of that size. I don’t say that claiming it as solely a UK achievement, and maybe that is where your view is different in that you are talking dominion.

Why the need to denigrate, UK has a few who act up, has errors to answer for, but mostly the British are not arrogant.

Film, language, sport not to mention other areas. French isn’t even a real global language any longer. Spanish is more use. Imagine the EU having to use English for all its external communications. I can’t see them being happy with that – they’ll have to use French or admit to their lack of language influence. Please use French and see how far that gets them.

All sides will be diminished by Brexit but the die is cast.

We sat through being bombed for close to 6 years, another form of bombing is about to start.

The Scots (generally) dispise the English with the same venom that the English despise the French. That is all the SNP stands for – nothing constructive – just pure hatred and unfortunately many Scots are blind to their propaganda. The Scots consider themselves to be a generous and welcoming Nation. Sometimes they are not. Its not just the English that say this. I used to have a business partner from Greece who studied as a student in Scotland and he considered Scots to be hostile, bigoted and petty minded. This isn’t the image that the Scots like to have of themselves, but unfortunately its sometimes true.

The Scots think the English hate them but that is not actually the case. English people have a very different social and cultural code of practise. So far as most English are concerned, Scotland (if it figures at all) is some frozen land far distant somewhere near the North Pole. To the vast majority, I would honestly say 95%+ of the English, Scotland is a pure irrelevance. TheScots resent this.

The Scots will get their indpendence this time round, and it will be a huge mistake. My own view is that the propaganda and hatred stirred up by the SNP will be so intense as to ensure it happens. Then what happens?

I have long argued that Scotland MANAGED PROPERLY could be a brilliant small economy. It has a fantastic history, world class scenery, Scotch Whisky AND a living prehistoric monster, even though nobody has ever seen it. It has kilties and ghillies. It has the best golf on the planet … being a St Andrews Alumni Ive played the Old Course on half a dozen occasions and can certainly vouch for the experience. So it has an awful lot that other countries simply don’t have.

But it also has a very strong socialist tendency and that WILL be its downfall. I have grave doubts it will ever be able to live within its means and it will never have the discipline to make things work and will never have a strong and decisive administration. I genuinely fear that post indyref2 and post Brexit, mal administration by the SNP amongst others will very quickly turn Scotland into a basket case like Greece.

And what will Englands response be? England will get strong. Free of its EU shackles, the English simply won’t give a two penny hoot! ‘You asked for independence, Jimmy. You can b****** well get on with it’. And the EU will prove be a far worse paymaster than the English have been since the Union of the Crowns.

My background? I am English by birth but moved to the industrial heartland of Scotland when I was 12. I lived and grew up and was educated in Scotland, and married a Scots girl. We live about an hour from the Scots border and visit the country two or three times a year. Alex Salmond actually shared my hall of residence when I was a student, but I have no recollection of him at the time.

Scotllamd has been a big part of my life, but perhaps in my lifetime (I’m 62 now) Scotland will also just fade away.

If Scotland were to gain Monetary Sovereignty, then it could never go broke in its currency. It would want to avoid AT ALL COSTS using the Pound or Euro. Greece’s No1 problem is that it gave away its monetary sovereignty. Britain has managed to hang onto its MS although slightly watered down by the Lisbon Treaty. But it’s a vastly safer position than for ant Euro nation.

fla56: The economic illiteracy is all yours. Clydesdale Bank and Bank of Scotland both print Scottish pounds that are at par with Sterling.What is going to back that currency is the real economy that backs every other currency to a greater or lesser extent; real wealth production. Scotland has a huge whisky industry, oil and gas, some manufacturing and tourism, all with a small population. Scotland need not fear independence or membership in the EURO area, they will do just fine, England, on the other hand?

The stunning ability of socialists to lie to themselves and to each other.

Why not have Scotland merge with Venezeula and get this whole ridiculous socialism fantasy over with? Obama can be president of the socialist fantasy and show how he thinks the private sector is useless, the government does everything in Venezeula.

One thing is for sure: you will never meet a socialist that can balance a checkbook without ongoing “subsidies” from someone or something else.

I don’t agree with you there. A little disrespectfully put, but basically true. However, on the other side of the scale – the disproportionately wealthy are just as open to criticism for the way they behave. The way forward lies somewhere in between the two extremes – in my humble opinion.

The best way forward is almost always between 2 extremes, when that is possible (in the Spanish Civil War for example, there was no inbetween, either way you lose). Extremism pretty much always guarantees a bad outcome.

There are a lot of issues to come into play if Scotland really votes for independance – a hard border – the loss of military installations – trade tarrifs, I could go on. But the big item that I don’t think The SNP is prepared for, and I’m not saying it’s going to happen, but I ask the question – What would be the result of a Referendum if all the Scots living and working in England and Wales were give the vote? There are a lot of them! Observers should note that several of our prime ministers have been Scottish, and not all of them were very good (Blair Brown). There is a LOT of winging going on by the SNP and its supporters. If they want to separate, fair enough; I hope The EU (minus the UK’s financial contributions) are prepared to pay for them. Divorce is always an unhappy thing, but sometimes it can be good for both parties. As an Englishman, I am delighted we are getting out of The EU; if Scotland wants to leave The Union, I shall be sad and sorry, but not particularly unhappy.

“Perhaps May just lets Scotland decide for itself what it wants to do rather than engage in heavy-handed fearmongering.”

That would be the best option regardless of how any vote turns out. Scotland is more important to the NATO alliance (that I’d like to see US out of) than it is to the UK or the EU. Scotland, unlike the UK, does not have its own currency so leaving the UK would be more difficult for them than was the UK leaving the EU.

England (with Wales) would be better off without Scotland than Scotland would be without England. Don’t know which way N. Ireland would turn, given the Ulster Scots have greater ties to Scotland than England. Scots speak English – they might just reject independence again.

Go back to Elizabethan (1st) time and you will see that The Scots are hated by the Irish because they settled in Northern Ireland at that time and whenever the indigenous Irish tried to get rid of them, they lit beacons and their fellow Scots on The Mull of Kintyre rushed over to protect them. In the 1960s/70s, the Northern Irish actually wanted the British to send troops to help sort out “The Troubles” in N Ireland, and what did some idiot in the UK Ministry of Defence do? The sent in a Scottish Regiment. They could not have done anything more designed to rub the noses of the Catholic N Irish in the dirt, if they had tried to.

I think N Ireland is on the way to union with The Republic. It may still take a few years, but I firmly believe it is coming.

By the way, Scotland’s contribution to NATO is virtually personnell only – all paid for by England!

“By the way, Scotland’s contribution to NATO is virtually personnell only – all paid for by England!”

Scotland’s contribution to NATO is geographic.

I know the Scots and Irish republicans despise each other. As long as Ulster has a significant Presbyterian presence, it will not join the Irish Republic. The politicians in Ireland do not really want unification anyway even though they always claim they do. There are two reasons for this, one being that it would upset politics in Ireland and the other because, should conflict return to N Ireland, Ireland would have a much more difficult time controlling it than Britain did. It could mean civil war.

This is a win win proposition for Sturgeon. She can look tough standing up to the Westminster demons without really risking anything. If the economy goes south she can blame it all on the Tories and their mad Brexit plans. Sturgeon can claim that she did everything in her power to prevent Brexit. If the economy does well Sturgeon can claim that her pressure was responsible for forcing the Tories to get a good deal.

Either way, all the talk about the succession will distract anyone from what is actually happening in Scotland.

Having been raised in Canada I am well acquainted with the dynamics of separatist politics. It is a tried and true method of regional politics to deflect attention (and blame).

Sturgeon by name, sturgeon by nature. A worthless turd swilling round the Scots’ political bowl.

The only Scots who’ll vote in favour of independence are those retards who can’t see the EU is done for. (I accept there are a fair few of those).

Everyone is in it for themselves — it’s all about the surest way the ‘benefits’ will carry on flowing.

I cannot wait for the day that governments are so bankrupt they simply won’t be able to bail out ANYONE at all and citizens will have to start working to put bread on the table. Novel concept, no doubt, but a long time coming ..

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email. Note: You'll have to confirm your address after sign-up. Please check your spam folder if you do not receive a confirmation email.